An enquiry into the moderating effect of leader personality on the relationship between team
personality composition and team effectiveness.
Do team personality diversity and leader personality have a moderating effect on the relationship between team mean personality and team effectiveness?
Master thesis Leadership & Management Véronique van Herwijnen
2 Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Véronique van Herwijnen who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
3 Table of contents
1. Abstract 5
2. Introduction 7
3. Theoretical background and hypotheses 11
3.1 Defining team personality composition 11
3.1.1 The “Big Five” or Five-Factor model 11
3.1.2 Measurements of team personality 11
3.1.3. The role of situational factors 14
3.2 Expected relations between team personality composition and team effectiveness 15 3.3 The moderating influence of team personality diversity 17
3.3.1 Agreeableness 17
3.3.2 Conscientiousness 18
3.3.3 Emotional Stability 19
3.3.4 Extraversion 20
3.3.5 Openness to Experience 21
3.4 The moderating influence of leader personality 22
3.4.1 Agreeableness 23
3.4.2 Conscientiousness 24
3.4.3 Emotional Stability 24
3.4.4 Extraversion 25
3.4.5 Openness to Experience 26
3.5 Team effectiveness, distinguishing between behavioral and performance outcomes 26
4. Method 27
4.1 Participants 27
4
5. Results 30
6. Discussion 59
7. Theoretical implications 63
8. Practical implications 64
9. Limitations and further research 64
10. Conclusion 67
11. References 68
Appendix A: Letters of invitation 74
Appendix B.1: Team manager survey 77
Appendix B.2: Team member survey 87
Appendix C: Means, standard deviations and correlations 107
5 1. Abstract
The importance of personality characteristics for team effectiveness outcomes, like team performance and organizational citizenship behaviors, has been recognized by various researches for both individual and team constructs. Still little is known about moderating effects on the relationship between team composition and team effectiveness. By the use of several hierarchical regression analysis, for a sample of 23 teams within the recruitment branch, this study therefore investigates the moderation effects of team personality diversity and leader personality on the relationship between team personality composition, based on the Big-Five personality traits, and team effectiveness in the form of team performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Significant positive effects were found between main effect of team agreeableness mean (p = 0.02) and team extraversion mean (p = 0.06) and OCB. Although the relationship between team extraversion mean was weaker, both findings still indicate that higher levels of team mean constructs for agreeableness and extraversion result in higher levels of OCB, which confirms the expectations of this study. However these FFM traits did not show a significant relationship with team performance. Contrary to the expectations no significant findings were found for main effects of team conscientiousness mean, team neuroticism mean and team openness to experience mean and the relationship with OCB and team performance.
Expectations of the positive moderating effect of team personality diversity on the relationship between team personality mean and team effectiveness were not confirmed. Leader personality however shows to be a valid moderating factor, since results show that leader personality can stronger or weaker the relationship between team personality mean and team effectiveness.
The findings show that highest levels of OCB are reached when leader agreeableness is high in combination with high mean levels of team agreeableness (p = 0.09). Also a positive, but weak, significant interaction effect of high leader agreeableness and high team openness to experience mean is found (p = 0.08). These findings are both in line with what is hypothesized. The combination of high levels of leader agreeableness with low team conscientiousness mean (p = 0.01) leading to a stronger relation with team performance, was not as expected but also significant.
The effect of high leader extraversion on the relationship between team openness to experience mean and OCB did not follow the expected direction, but showed that the best results for OCB are reached when team openness to experience is low (p = 0.05).
High levels of leader emotional stability stronger the relationship with team performance when team agreeableness mean is low (p = 0.03) and when team openness to experience is high (p = 0.06). The interaction between leader emotional stability and team openness to experience and its effect on team performance is in line with what was hypothesized, namely that higher levels of both constructs will lead to the best results for team performance. However the interaction between leader emotional stability and team agreeableness is therefore not.
6 At last findings show that leader openness to experience will lead to a stronger relationship between team openness to experience mean when leader openness to experience is high and levels of team openness to experience mean are low. This was also not in line with the expectation of this study. Lesser significant interactions effect of leader personality were found than expected, and findings that did were significant did not all confirm the studies hypotheses. However the results are still interesting for both theoretical and practical implications when it comes to the composition of teams for
optimizing team effectiveness. Also the findings of this study provide insight in interesting fields for future research by showing that cross level interaction between FFM traits in different constructs are interesting to research.
7 2. Introduction
Due to rapid economic and technological changes the use of teams within organizations has increased over the years. These fast changes give team members a limited time span to adapt quickly and keep up with competition. Partially due to this limited time span for a specific task or assignment, team members are often given a specific role or function to perform within the team. This way they combine their skills and knowledge to reach their common goal. To be able to reach these goals in a limited amount of time, it is of great importance for team members to exchange information and resources on a regular basis. In order to do this efficiently, good communication and interaction between team members is needed. After all team members are dependent of one another, and have to co-ordinate and adjust their action effectively to meet the demands of each other.
Because of these potential advantages related to organizing work in teams, teamwork became quite common in organizations, and therefore teams became an interesting field of study for researches, who were curious about how teamwork results in the highest levels of team effectiveness.
The first studies on teams started in the 1950s and 1960s. Since then several statements have been written to define teams. For this study I chose to go with the description given by Sales et al. in 1992, who define a team as a set of two or more individuals interacting adaptively, interdependently and dynamically towards a common and valued goal.
Previous results already show that combining skills, knowledge, attitudes and other employee characteristics of several individuals, otherwise known as team diversity, can potentially result in optimal achievement of organizational goals, higher employee motivation and satisfaction, and can also positively influence team functioning and performance (Neuman et al., 1999; Bell, 2007; Mount et al., 1998; Cobert et al., 2014). However the results depend on the right composition of the team. Since teamwork has become common in a lot of workplaces, it is interesting to look into different strategies for the
formation of teams based on personality, since the results are particularly interesting for staffing decisions within cooperation’s (Peeters et al., 2006; Peeters et al, 2016).
Personality refers to individual differences in emotional qualities which results in characteristic thoughts, feelings and behaviors. Personality therefore determines the contributions that individual team members make to team effectiveness and also influences team functioning and the way team members interact in performing work together, because it determines the behavior of the individual team members (LePine et al., 2011; Prewett et al., 2009). Agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion and openness to experience, which are part of the Five-Factor Model of personality, are often used to describe individual personality. Research by Barrick and Mount (1991) on the relationship between individual personality characteristics and performance shows that FFM traits are valid predictors of individual job performance. The relationship between the Five-Factor Model of personality and job performance on the individual level is also supported by the study of Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein (1991).
8 Team composition thus involves the recruitment and selection of the right group of individuals with, among other criteria, the job-relevant personality characteristics (Cook, 2015). Not only did research focus on personality being predictive of individual performance, several researches took an interest in studying the effects of team personality on different team outcomes (Bell, 2007; Prewett et al., 2009; Humprey et al., 2011; O’Neil & Allen, 2010). Several meta-analyses have already summarized the existent primary research on the link between team composition and team performance, and these implicate that team member personality composition is a factor that is often predictive of team functioning and team performance (Bell, 2007; Peeters et al. 2006; Neuman et al., 1999; Mount et al., 1998; Colbert et al., 2014).
Studies by Bell (2007) and Prewett et al. (2009) show weak but significant relationships between personality composition in terms of team mean as well as team diversity and team performance. Both studies found that the mean team level of a personality trait was a stronger predictor of team performance than is diversity. This however does not imply that diversity within team personality composition is not an indicator of performance, since results suggest that there indeed is a relationship.
Research by Bell (2007) and Prewett et al. (2009) have focused on the effects of team composition on team performance. However team effectiveness is determined by more than just team performance, and can also be assessed true behavioral outcomes. Several researchers suggest that personality characteristics will first result into attitudes, which leads to employees engaging in positive behaviors, which should result in higher productivity and performance (Judge et al., 2001; George & Brief, 1992; Barrick et al., 2003).
Theory by Roe (2002) supports this with a competencies framework, consisting of several lairs of competencies, knowledge, skills, attitudes, behavior, capacities, personality and other characteristics. This framework distinguish between components within this framework that can be trained and developed and which cannot. According to Roe personality influences which knowledge, skills and attitude an individual will gain, which in turn determine which competencies the same individual will develop. Personality characteristics determine the behavior of that individual in a variety of situations, because of their link to the behavior of which the person in question feels the most comfortable with. Of course it is possible for an individual to master other types of behaviors and competencies, but when this behavior is not in line with the basic characteristics of the individual this will cost more energy to show than when the individual sticks with what feels natural to him or her. This suggest that personality is predictive of a person’s strengths, weaknesses, motivation, needs, way of communicating, conflict behavior and key values which potentially shape interactions of an individual with their team members.
9 LePine et al. (2011) argue that due to a bottom-up approach, also discussed by Roe (2002), these individual traits can lead to behaviors that are not only predictive for individual performance, but are also favorable in a team context. Therefore these employee behaviors potentially serve as the foundation for better team outcomes, and therefore are important measures for team effectiveness (LePine et al., 2009; Prewett et al., 2016).
Since previous research provides evidence for a potential relevance of team personality characteristics on both performance and behavior outcomes, this study will measure team effectiveness based on the level of team performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational citizenship behavior indicates the level of helping behaviors among team members. This behavioral outcome is chosen because teams are highly dependent upon interpersonal helping for effective functioning (King et al., 2005).
Team performance is chosen as an indicator of team effectiveness for this study, because it is often used as an outcome variable in team composition research. Therefore it is interesting to include team performance in this study to investigate if the hypothesized relationships of this study also show significant findings for the main effects, and even more important if our interaction effects also show significant findings.
Former researchers already tested the influence of several moderators (Bell, 2007; Prewett et al.; 2006; Prewett et al.; 2016), but we lack understanding of a large amount of variance that could be attributed to artifacts. Knowing what causes this additional variance is important because this may result in stronger significant relationships between personality composition and team effectiveness, than previous research has found so far (Bell, 2007).
Often a leader is present to manage the team processes (Sales et al., 2000). However, relatively little research has focused on leader personality as a moderating factor. Both leader and member characteristics interact with team outcomes. For instance research by Judge et al. (2002) already showed a positive relationship between leader personality and team effectiveness.
Furthermore there is evidence that a leader’s managing behavior towards team members as a group, influences the quality of the the leader – member relationship and the performance in and of the team (Nahrgang et al., 2009; Cole et al., 2014).
Since previous studies already showed significant, but weak, findings for both mean team personality and team personality diversity (Bell, 2007; Prewett et al., 2009), it is necessary to get a better understanding on the relationship between mean team levels of personality and diversity in team personality. Therefore the interaction effect of these two predictors is interesting to investigate, to see if this leads to stronger significant findings.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to contribute to existing team composition literature by investigating which team member personality composition in term of mean and diversity leads to the highest level of team effectiveness and which type of leader personality characteristics will have a positive
10 With this study I seek to answer the following research question:
Do team personality diversity and leader personality have a moderating effect on the relationship between team mean personality and team effectiveness?
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Team personality mean Team effectiveness
Leader personality Team personality diversity
11 3. Theoretical background and hypotheses
3.1 Defining team personality composition 3.1.1 The “Big Five” or Five-Factor model
In order to measure personality and it is characteristics, it is of the upmost importance to give a clear definition on what personality is and of what
characteristics it is composed. McDougall was one of the first who attempted to organize the taxonomy of personality in 1932 by writing: “Personality may to advantage be broadly analysed into five distinguishable but separate factors, namely intellect, character, temperament, disposition, and temper.” (Barrick & Mount, 1991). After that a lot of researchers followed with their own theories, but Norman’s work (1963) is most mentioned until now, because of his labels; extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and culture, which led to the “Big Five”. Nowadays the Five-Factor Model of personality is most often used to describe individual personality. It consists of five dimensions, namely; agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion and openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Individuals that score high on the personality trait agreeableness, tend to be good-natured, flexible, cooperative, caring, trusting and tolerant (Barrick et al, 1998).When individuals are considered highly conscientious, they tend to be responsible, careful, persevering, orderly, hardworking and planful (Barrick et al., 1998). Scoring high on the trait emotional stability indicates that an individual is secure, stable, relaxed, self-sufficient, not anxious and tolerant of stress (Barrick et al, 1998). Being highly extraverted as an individual often implies being talkative, assertive, adventurous and energetic (Barrick et al, 1998). It refers to the level of sociability and dominance individual’s exhibit. At last, being open to experience as an individual refers to how intellectually curious, imaginative, cultured and broad-minded a person is (Barrick et al, 1998).
3.1.2 Measurements of team personality
An instrument which a lot of researchers used to measure individual personality constructs is the NEO personality Inventory (NEO-PI), consistent of 60 items and developed by Costa & McCrae in 1992. Because this instrument is generalizable it is often used in team composition studies, and has provides valid results. It has been used across different populations, in several languages and still generated similar factors.
Looking at past studies (Bell, 2007; Prewett et al., 2009; Neuman et al., 1999; Humphrey et al., 2011; Mount et al., 1998), you see that researches often focus on two aspects of team personality composition. One is the team mean of the given personality trait. The other aspect is team personality diversity, which refers to the variability or differences among team members for the given personality trait. Contradicting results have been found regarding the
12 significance of the personality characteristics of the FFM, which makes it interesting to investigate the relationship between team personality composition and team effectiveness (Neuman et al., 1999).
Team mean personality composition, or team personality elevation, is a measure of the team’s average level of one or several personality traits of the FFM model. Scoring high on this trait or set of traits does not imply that all team members score high on this trait, but it does indicate that there are indeed some members who are high on a certain personality dimension and this elevates the team average score (Neuman et al., 1999).
The diversity in team personality shows the differences among team members with respect to a particular personality trait or set of traits. To measure team personality diversity, Muchinsky and Monahan developed two models of personality fit in 1987. Their supplementary model favors low or minimum
diversity for the improvement of job performance. When team member personalities are similar to each other, the team is homogeneous or low in diversity. So in this case the relationship existing between member and member will benefit from similarities in personal traits. This is supported by evidence in social psychology, suggesting that similarity in a number of dimensions, among them personality, is related to interpersonal attraction and liking (Byrne, 1971). Therefore team members are likely to be more attracted to each other when they have similar personalities. This may be due to the fact that belonging within a group is important for individuals, and perceived similarity has a positive influence on belongingness. The relationship between team members and their manager also benefits from perceived similarity. Research by Turban and Jones (1988) suggests that this leads to higher performance ratings.
The complementary model of Muchinsky and Monahan on the other hand suggests that maximum variability in personality among team members, and thus high diversity, will result in the best job performance (Neuman et al., 1999). The basis for this assumption is that team members complement each other, by bringing in their own individual characteristics that differ from each other. This can for example lead to different insights, which can potentially lead to better team outcomes. When looking at team diversity in openness to experience, which encompasses artistic, imaginative, insightful, and creative
tendencies (McCrae & John, 1992), a complementary fit can potentially results in team members on one hand, which score high on openness to experience, who come up with creative ideas to maintain innovative and competitive. The team members which score low on this personality trait on the other hand, will secure the continuity, by being more preserved. This way the team will stay in balance by not taking to many risks, but also not being overly cautious and hereby missing opportunities.
This assumption is also in line with an often used statement “opposites attract.” In contrary to the supplementary theory it does not have to mean that team members less alike do not get along, since diversity within a team contributes to self-identity of individual team members. Being different from other team members, can increase the individuals sense of uniqueness and self-worth, which derives from being better at something than others (Jackson & Johnson,2011).
13 Moreover, study by Belbin (1999) provides insight in the importance of different roles within a team for improved team effectiveness. Role theory can be described as different positions within a team, which can be associated with behaviors and (a set of) personality traits which match with these different roles. These personality traits are necessary to effectively carry out the behaviors associated with a given role. For instance, Belbin’s theory and findings support reasoning that it is better to have one single leader than to have multiple leaders. For this study, this can be related to extraversion, since this is an important indicator of leadership. Highly extravert people tend to take the lead within a group, whereas more introverted people are more likely to take the role of a follower. Having high mean levels of extraversion within a team can therefore result in role conflict. Having a complementary fit, and thereby a mix between more introvert team members, which can be labeled as “followers”, on one side and extravert team members, or “leaders”, on the other side, will be more desirable for performance and overall team effectiveness.
Looking at former research on team composition both mean and diversity constructs have shown weak but significant relationships with team effectiveness Bell (2007) provided findings for the positive relation between mean constructs of agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion and openness to experience. These findings show that higher levels of team mean constructs for agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion and openness to experience result in higher levels of team performance. Average levels of team mean agreeableness also show a positive relationship with team
performance.
Research by Prewett et al. (2009) on team diversity constructs, show significant findings which indicate a positive relationship between a supplementary fit for team agreeableness and conscientiousness and team performance as well as behavioral outcomes. The same research shows that for team emotional stability and extraversion a complementary fit is more desirable to reach higher levels of team performance and behavioral outcomes.
The interaction of these two constructs may however result in a stronger positive or negative relationship with team effectiveness. Other studies on team composition already suggested the need for expansion of the personality and job performance relation model by accounting for cross-dimensional effects of personality traits (Wright et al., 1995; Hogan et al., 1996).
Other studies already focus on cross-dimensional effects. For instance Prewett et al. (2016) provided evidence with their study that an individual team members performance, is influenced by the personality of its teammates. They found, among other findings, that higher levels of team mean
conscientiousness and heterogeneity in emotional stability had a moderating effect on the relationship between individual trait scores and team performance.
Furthermore research by King et al. (2005) found that the moderating effect of high individual agreeableness, emotional stability and extraversion, leads to a significant increase in the relationship between high individual conscientiousness and levels of helping behavior.
14 Since there are already significant results found for cross-dimensional effects of personality traits on both an individual and a team level, I expect by
combining both the best of mean and diversity constructs within a personality trait, to find a stronger relation with team performance and OCB. 3.1.3 The role of situational factors
Teamwork is a multidimensional construct which makes it really hard to study. Not only internal, but also external factors influence the achieved outcomes of the team in question. Still personality characteristics are interesting to study, since they indeed contribute to team outcomes, direct as well as indirect. Personality characteristics are after all determent, not only for one’s individual strengths and talents, but also influence one’s behavior and communication style, which are also predictive for team outcomes. However different occupational groups have their own field of expertise and own team processes, which requires a different sets off skills, competencies and characteristics to remain effective (Sales et al., 2000).
Therefore important factors to take into account, when measuring correlations between team personality and team outcomes, are the job and
organizational context. In order to understand the differences, one should take a closer look at social cognitive theory, which gives more insights into the cognitive processes that link personality characteristics and job behavior requirements.
Several studies have been conducted on the relationship between the Five-Factor model and performance, and outcomes imply that conscientiousness and emotional stability are predictive for job performance in almost all jobs. However when looking at the other three traits; agreeableness, extraversion and openness to experience we see that the level of success for team outcomes depends on the type of job.
For instance, agreeableness has shown to be predictive for performance in jobs that require teamwork and a lot of cooperation. When looking at the trait extraversion, research shows that this is an important characteristics to possess in sales functions and other jobs within a competitive environment. At last, openness to experience has not been found to significant relate to many relevant team outcomes. However a lot of assumptions in research have been made that this is an important characteristic to possess in jobs that require creative and innovative ideas (Barrick et al., 2003).
Since situational factors, like task interdependence and occupational settings, may influence the direction and level of the relationships between team mean personality and team effectiveness, it is important to incorporate them in this study (Bell, 2007).
15 3.2 Expected relations between team personality composition and team effectiveness
With this present study I want to investigate the influence of the five dimensions of personality within teams on two dimensions of team effectiveness. Team effectiveness refers to the capacity of team members to achieve goals and objectives together and can be defined a: “A variety of inputs by team members, which in turn affect team output in form of intragroup processes and outcomes. “ Team output can be labeled as team outcomes, which are associated with productivity, as well as to the capability of continue working cooperative” (Barrick, Mount, Neubert & Mount, 1998).
Team members are interdependent in their tasks and share the responsibility for their team outcomes, therefore teamwork and team group cohesiveness are very important to reach higher levels of team effectiveness.
In their study Borman and Motowidlo (1997) made the distinction between in-role and extra-role behavior. Behaviors that are required for a job, and therefore often mentioned in a job description because they result in task performance, are referred to as in-role behavoirs. Behaviors which are not prescribed for a job are labelled as extra-role behaviors and result in contextual performance (Van Dyne et al., 1995; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; King et al., 2005). Organizational citizenship behavior is often used in studies that focus on extra-role behaviors to see if these contextual behaviors may support task performance.
Organizational citizenship behavior refers to voluntarily helping other team members with work-related task and problems. Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) provided theoretical reasoning that OCB improves organizational effectiveness because of these helping and supporting behaviors.
Another study by Podsakoff et al. (1997) indeed found significant results that helping behaviors indeed improve on both performance quantity and quality. Since teams are highly dependent upon this kind of interpersonal helping of one another for effective functioning, I assume that this is an interesting construct to focus on in this study (King et al., 2005).
Furthermore team performance is also an interesting construct to research, because it is a good indicator of the extent to which the team succeeded in achieving their goals and objectives.
Several studies have already indicated a positive relationship between team composition based on the FFM personality traits and team performance (Bell, 2007; Prewett et al., 2009; Humprey et al., 2011; O’Neil & Allen, 2010). Bell (2007) shows that mean conscientiousness and openness to experience are strong predictors of team performance in field studies. Peeters et al. (2006) found significant effects for elevation in agreeableness and conscientiousness on performance. Results by Neubert and Mount (1998) indicate that teams higher in conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability received higher supervisor ratings for team performance.
16 Prewett et al. (2009) did something similar to this study, by not only focussing on team performance as a dependent variable, but also on team behavioural outcomes. Their findings indicated a stronger relationship between team FFM personality trait composition and team behaviours than with team outcomes. Since OCB can be labelled as behaviour as well, I expect that findings of this study will indicate a positive relationship between team FFM personality trait compositions. This is supported by research of King et al. (2005), who found significant interactions between the FFM and helping behaviors.
Job performance on the other hand is dependent of several factors. Not only personality characteristics are predictive of job performance, but so are knowledge, skills and abilities. Therefore OCBs are probably better predicted by personality variables (Van Emmerik & Euwema, 2007), since personality is predictive of an individual’s overall role behaviour according to Belbin’s role theory and Roe’s competencies framework.
Results by Hough (1992) indicated that conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability are the best predictors of teamwork. This is relevant since OCBs refer to helping colleagues, meeting workplace rules and performing extra-job activities, which are all important when performing as a team (Mount et al., 1998). This is also supported by research of Organ and Ryan (1995) which performed a study on predictors of OCB. They found conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability and extraversion to be relevant for jobs that involve altruism, a component of OCB which can be described as helping behavior. Furthermore Van Emmerik and Euwema (2007) conducted a research among teachers of secondary schools to study associations between
personality and OCBS, and the moderating role of team leader effectiveness. Their findings show that extraverts and teachers which score high on openness to experience, are more engaged in OCBs. Their research also indicates that teachers that score higher on conscientiousness, also score higher on OCBs. They also found team leader effectiveness to positively influence the relationship between introvert and neurotic teachers and OCBs, meaning that teachers become more engaged in OCB when they evaluate their team leader as effective.
17 3.3 The moderating influence of team personality diversity
When looking at former studies on team personality composition and team effectiveness, researchers found overall effects of team personality and performance, measuring both team mean as well as diversity in team personality composition (Bell, 2007; Prewett et al., 2009). Prewett et al. (2009) conducted a research to see whether a complementary fit or a supplementary fit was a more accurate predictor of performance. Their findings show that the mean level of the trait has a stronger predictive power for performance outcome than the variability within a given trait has. They argue that having higher mean levels of each of these traits in teams would in the aggregate be beneficial for overall team performance, regardless of the extent that there might be variation on those traits, therefore this study will test this by means of the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Higher team mean levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion and openness to experience will result in
higher levels of team effectiveness.
However as argued before, other studies did find significant positive relations based on supplementary and complementary team personality composition fits. This indicates that having diversity on personality traits within a team, is also predictive for team effectiveness. Therefore this study will not only focus on the relationship between high team means of the five dimensions of personality and team effectiveness, but will also investigate the moderating
influence of variability per personality dimension, to see if and under what conditions this makes the relationship stronger. Following I will discuss expected findings per characteristic.
3.3.1 Agreeableness
Considering that individuals that score high on the personality trait agreeableness are often seen as considerate, trusting and friendly, one could argue that they are better in interpersonal facilitation (Bell, 2007).
Therefore high team mean agreeableness is expected to be positively related to team effectiveness, because this will likely lead to better communication, cooperation, conflict resolution, alignment and group cohesion (Peeters et al., 2006). This is supported by results of studies by Bell (2007) and Mount et al. (1998) which show that higher averages scores of agreeableness lead to higher team performance. Also agreeableness has shown to be a predictor of helping behavior (Organ & Ryan, 1995).
I expect that low team diversity in agreeableness will positively moderate this relationship. Since team members will be more alike, this will facilitate interpersonal attraction. Furthermore one can reason that one disagreeable team member can disrupt the social harmony within the group, which can result in lower team effectiveness (Bell, 2007). This will undo positive effects resulting from high team mean agreeableness, therefore low diversity in
18 agreeableness is desirable. This is in line with findings in the study by Peeters et al. (2006), which found significant effects for high elevation and low
diversity in agreeableness. Prewett et al. (2009) also found a negative relationship between diversity in agreeableness along team members and overall performance.
Hypothesis 2: Agreeableness diversity moderates the relationship between high team mean agreeableness and team effectiveness, such that the
relationship will be stronger when diversity is low rather than high.
3.3.2 Conscientiousness
In relation to performance outcomes, conscientiousness is considered as the best predictor of individual performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991). In teams, conscientiousness is also likely to have a positive influence on goal achievement and effort the team members exert (Humphrey et al, 2011).
In general, the more conscientious team members are, the better the performance will be (Bell, 2007; Mount et al., 1998; Neuman et al., 1999). This because these characteristics will result into effort and positively influence on team goal completion. Highly conscientious team members are focused and committed to the task, and it is likely that this will contribute to a better quality of work and higher levels of effectiveness in performing the task.
When investigating the relationship between personality dimensions and individual job performance, among five occupational groups; professionals, police, managers, sales and skilled/semi-skilled, Barrick and Mount positively linked conscientiousness to all of these groups. Therefore I assume that it is favorable for all members within a team, to possess high levels of this personality trait.
Also former research shows that conscientiousness is the FFM trait which is rated as most important by managers when hiring a new team member (Dunn et al., 1995).
Similarity in conscientiousness is desirable for teams. Highly conscientious team members tend to hold coworkers to their own performance and motivational standards (Witt et al., 2002). Dissimilarity may lead to conflict within the team, because having team members which score low on
conscientiousness and therefore are likely to hold lower performance standards may lead to irritations by team members which score high on the traits and tend to strive harder to complete a task. These irritations may have a negative effect on team effectiveness (Mohammed & Angell, 2003; Molleman et al., 2004).
Findings of the study by Barrick et al. (1998) and Kichuk (1999) supports this assumption by showing higher team performance is reached when teams have lower diversity conscientiousness.
19 Because of the link to discipline and responsibility, it is also likely that high conscientiousness will have a positive relation with helping behavior, because highly conscientious team members feel obliged to engage in behaviors that are not required, but are good for the organization (King et al., 2005). This is supported by study of Organ and Ryan (1995) which shows that conscientiousness is a significant predictor of helping behavior.
Therefore I hypothesize that low diversity in team conscientiousness will positively moderate the relationship between high team mean and team effectiveness, because teams with low diversity in team conscientiousness tends to create a work environment were team member effort is encouraged, which potentially will result in better team outcomes. High diversity within the team on this personality characteristic may lead to conflict within the team and diminish the positive effects on team effectiveness. For example, less conscientious team members may irritate more conscientious team members when not being as accurate as they are or by not meeting deadlines.
Hypothesis 3: Conscientiousness diversity moderates the positive relationship between high team mean conscientiousness and team effectiveness such that
the relationship will be stronger when diversity is low rather than high.
3.3.3 Emotional Stability
Team members that score high on emotional stability tend to be more secure and self-confident, which is argued to have a positive effect on goal
achievement and decision-making. The same qualities likely result in stable work environments and pleasant work behaviors and communication between team members (Peeters et al., 2006). A high team mean is therefore desirable for positive output, and also low diversity in the scoring of team members on this personality trait is considered positive, because one stable or neurotic team member may disrupt the positive effects on team effectiveness (Peeters et al., 2006). For example, when one team member is less tolerant of stress this may lead to an emotional outburst, resulting in less professional work behavior or communication, which can cause tension (Peeters et al., 2006).
Higher team levels of emotional stability are therefore expected to positively relate to team performance. Several studies support this assumption (Barrick et al., 1998; Kichuk & Wiesner, 1998; Molleman et al., 2004). However study by Barrick et al. (1992) has not found emotional stability to be a meaningful predictor of OCB. Nevertheless since similarity in emotional stability helps to mitigated conflict situations within the team, it is possible that when diversity in team emotional stability is high, that the team members that score low on this FFM trait may interpret help-seeking behaviors as annoying of threatening, which may potentially result in them withhold helpful responses that contribute to OCB (King et al., 2005).
Therefore I expect that low levels of diversity in team emotional stability will have a positive moderating effect on the relationship between team mean emotional stability and team effectiveness.
20
Hypothesis 4: Emotionality stability diversity moderates the relationship between high team mean emotional stability and team effectiveness, such that the
relationship will be stronger when diversity is low rather than high.
3.3.4 Extraversion
Extraversion refers to the level of sociability and dominance individuals exhibit. How people interact with others is likely a function of their level of extraversion, so on a team level, extraversion is likely to impact the quality of meaningful interaction between members (Humphrey et al, 2011).
Overall researchers acknowledge that higher levels of team mean extraversion leads to high team performance (Barry & Stewart, 1997; Bell; 2007). High team extraversion has shown to be an important predictor of occupations which require social interaction (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
When a team consist of mostly extraverted team member, which are often seen as more dominant than introverted team members, this might result into role conflict over leadership, because all team members are trying to take the lead within the group (Barry & Stewart; 1997; Mohammed & Angell, 2003). Other roles may be neglected within the team, which may result in lesser overall performance (Prewett et al., 2016). Therefore variance in extraversion is desirable, because role conflict will likely be decreased by a complementary fit (Humphrey et al.,2001).
However extraversion is known to stimulate more than just competition status and dominant role behavior. Research also links extraversion to social behavior, friendliness and assertiveness. Therefore extraverted team members are also likely to stimulate other team members to take action and participate in positive role behavior, because they will get inspired during group discussions. This may on its turn positively influence the team outcomes, because this may result into higher levels of helping behavior. However former studies have not shown a significant relationship between extraversion and helping behavior yet (Barrick et al., 1992; Smith et al., 1983).
Therefore I hypothesize that higher levels of extraversion mean in teams are favorable in combination with higher levels of team extraversion diversity to optimize cooperation and positive affect and avoid role conflict situations which will contribute to overall team effectiveness (Prewett et al., 2016).
Hypothesis 5: Extraversion diversity moderates the relationship between high team mean extraversion and team effectiveness, such that the relationship
21
3.3.5 Openness to Experience
People who exhibit this characteristic in higher levels tend to have an open mind, are more likely to take risks and come up with creative ideas. Little support is yet found for a relationship with measures of performance (Barrick et al., 2001) or helping behaviors (King et al., 2005).
However having a high team openness to experience mean may have, considering the link to the ability to take risks and come up with new and creative ideas, a positive effect on the level of adaptability in new situations. Also, more team members will be creative and therefore will build on each other’s ideas and will find solutions for problems more easily (Peeters et al., 2006).
Furthermore openness to experience has shown to be related to creative behaviors in the workplace, but only when the these behaviors are supported within the organization in question. Having a higher team mean level may contribute to creating a safe environment to share ideas.
These creative behaviors may also result helping other team members to resolve work-related problems in a creative way (George & Zhou, 2001; King et al., 2005).
Diversity in openness to experience however may be desirable, because having only team members that score high on openness to experience may result in role conflict and low cohesion within the team, because all members want to see their own idea executed (Peeters et al., 2006).
Also diversity in this FFM trait is desirable, because team members scoring high on openness to experience are needed for their creative ideas which are important to create new business opportunities, but also less ambitious members are needed to vouch for a stable work environment. I therefore expect that a supplementary fit for openness to experience diversity will positively moderate the effect of high mean openness to experience on team
effectiveness.
Hypothesis 6: Openness to experience diversity moderates the relationship between high team mean openness to experience and team effectiveness, such
22 3.4 The moderating influence of team leader personality
As mentioned before, personality refers to individual differences in emotional qualities which results in characteristic thoughts, feelings and behaviors. Leadership is also a form of behaviour, and is known to be a factor that improves team performance (Stewart, 2006). Several studies already linked the FFM traits to effective leadership (Hoogh et al., 2005; Judge et al., 2002).
Manager behaviour, influenced by the managers personality traits, will determine the way in which a manager will manage the team processes and guides its team towards their team outcomes. This is also likely to influence the group dynamics and levels of team effectiveness, since the relationship between an employee and its team members, but also its manager, has a significant impact on the employees attitudes and behavior (Judge et al., 2002; Nahrgang et al., 2009). Several studies already pointed out that a positive relationships between team members and their manager are linked to lower levels of stress and turnover rates, higher levels of job satisfaction, and also higher levels of team performance and organizational citizenships behaviour (Gersten & Day, 1997; Humphrey et al, 2007; Ilies et al., 2007). Since trait’s effect on leadership behaviour depends on the situation, than this may also depend on the
characteristics of it team members (Hughes et al., 1996; Yuki & van Fleet; 1992; Judge et al., 2002). It is likely that individual characteristics of both manager and the members of the team will have an impact on initial interactions and assessment of one another, which may result in higher or lower levels of team effectiveness (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Therefore this study will investigate the influence of team leader personality on the relation between team
personality composition and team effectiveness.
When looking into leader personality research, other researchers already took an interest in how leader personality traits affect leader outcomes. Judge et al. conducted a study in 2002, because there was little understanding of how traits translate into leader effectiveness. For future research they encourage other researches to further explore linkages between the Big Five traits and leadership (Ng et al, 2008). This study is trying to contribute to this, by
investigating how leader personality traits can further enhance team effectiveness, by also using the FFM of personality and the dimensions; agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion and openness to experience.
It is important to take into account that leadership will only have an positive impact, when we speak of effective leadership. Therefore it is interesting to look into which personality traits are predictive of effective leadership, because these traits may also have a positive effect on the relationship between team composition and team effectiveness.
Prior research already indicated that team personality composition influences the effectiveness of workgroups (Bell, 2007; Mount et al., 1998). Upper echelons theory suggest that the positive effects of personality composition extend to top levels of organizations, meaning that leader personality may positively influence team functioning, satisfaction and performance as well (Colbert et al., 2014). This is supported by findings by research of Colbert, Barrick & Bradley in 2014. Their study investigated the effects of personality and leadership composition in top management teams for organizational effectiveness.
23 Mean levels of conscientiousness and transformational leadership accounted for the largest percentage of variance explained for organizational
performance. This suggest that both personality and leadership are relevant for shaping organizational performance. When looking at the FFM of
personality, research by Judge et al. (2002) investigated the relationship between leader personality and leader effectiveness and leader emergence. Four of the five dimensions where positively related to leader effectiveness, namely; conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion and openness to
experience.
Below I consider possible positive relationships between leader personality on the assumed positive relationship between team composition and team effectiveness. This discussion is organized according to each of the FFM traits.
3.4.1 Agreeableness
Agreeableness has shown to be an important indicator for team effectiveness in team settings (Bell, 2007; Mount et al., 1998), however it might not be as desirable for a leader. Judge, Bono et al. (2002) show that agreeableness does not significant relate to leader effectiveness. This might be due to the fact that a leader sometimes has to avoid group thinking by making decisions, and create and set strategies to achieve organizational goals. In order to do this and add to team effectiveness, a leader cannot be overly modest or agreeable, but has to have a strong opinion and communicate a clear sense of direction (Colbert et al., 2014; Den Hoogh et al., 2005). This is supported by research by Judge et al (2002), which shows a weak correlation between agreeableness and leadership. They state that the link between the variables is ambiguous because cooperativeness, which is typical for agreeableness, tends to be related to leadership. On the other hand is agreeableness is also linked to modesty, which may be less desirable for a manager, since having a clear vison and strong opinions is often assessed as more favorable for effective leaders (Judge et al., 2002). Lower levels of leader agreeableness, may for instance empower behaviors of team members, since a leader low on agreeableness is more likely to delegate responsibilities to them. Moreover a leader who scores low on agreeableness will keep team members more task-focused, by clarifying expectations and rules and procedures (De Hoogh et al, 2005). This will contribute to followers keeping their eyes on the organizational objectives, which will likely result in higher team effectiveness.
However leaders and team members do have to work together, for which cooperativeness is desirable. When a leader inhibits higher levels of agreeableness, this will likely contribute to team members putting more trust in the relationship, which may result in an increase of the quality of the relations but also in team effectiveness. This is supported by research by Kamdar & Van Dyne (2007) who found a positive relationship between agreeableness and LMX (Nahrgang et al., 2009).
Considering this I propose that higher levels of leader agreeableness will have a positive effect on the relationship between team mean FFM traits and team effectiveness.
24
Hypothesis 7: Leader agreeableness moderates the relationship between team personality composition and team effectiveness such that the relationship
will be stronger when the leader scores high rather than low on agreeableness.
3.4.2 Conscientiousness
Research by Mount & Barrick (1991) indicates that conscientiousness is a strong predictor of overall job performance. Therefore it is likely that
conscientiousness is also a predictor of leader effectiveness. Moreover, conscientious individuals tend to be high in initiative and persistence, which are both related to leadership (Judge et al, 2002). Colbert et al. (2014) add to this with their findings that mean levels of conscientiousness among top
management teams are related to organizational performance. This suggests that this personality trait is relevant for shaping organizational performance. This because this will result in effective leadership, which will enhance employee outcomes. A leader is also part of the team, and having a leader that scores low on conscientiousness will disrupt the team effort of keeping their work organized and structured. A leader or manager, also functions as a role model by showing the desired behavior. Setting the right example as a leader may inspire team members to perform beyond expectations themselves which will likely have a positive impact on goal achievement (Den Hoogh et al., 2005). Also similarity in conscientiousness between leader and team members, may result in better quality of cooperation, which likely will improve team effectiveness (Turban & Jones, 1988).
Therefore I propose that having a highly conscientious leader will have a positive effect on the relationship between team mean FFM traits and team effectiveness
Hypothesis 8: Leader conscientiousness moderates the relationship between team personality composition and team effectiveness, such that the
relationship will be stronger when a leader scores high rather than low on this personality trait.
3.4.3 Emotional stability
One way to estimate the personal level of emotional stability of an individual is to measure how secure the individual is. This could also be labeled as self-esteem, and self-confidence is predictive for leadership.
Emotional stability has shown to be a valid predictor for all occupations, and it is likely that it will also be predictive for leader performance. This is supported by findings of the research by Judge et al (2002) which indicates that neuroticism, the counterpart of emotional stability, is negative related to leader emergence and leader effectiveness.
25 Therefore it is possible that a leader with higher levels of emotional stability will deal more effectively with stress and is less likely to react emotionally, which may contribute in a positive way to the relation between team mean FFM traits and team effectiveness, because the leader, due to his or her stable attitude, can mediate between team members when conflicts occur and make sure that team members stay focused on their tasks (Colbert et al., 2014). Based on this assumption I propose that having a leader with high levels of emotional stability will have a positive effect on the relationship between team mean FFM traits and team effectiveness.
Hypothesis 9: Leader emotional stability moderates the relationship between team personality composition and team effectiveness, such that the
relationship will stronger when a leader scores high rather than low on this personality trait.
3.4.4 Extraversion
Components of the personality trait extraversion are dominance and sociability, which are both consistent with traditional perceptions of leadership. This would imply that individuals which score high on extraversion are more likely to be perceived as leaders (Humphrey et al., 2011). Leaders who are highly extraverted, tend to have greater social influence and better communication skills, which potentially can result into higher levels of effectiveness. Team leaders are responsible for communicating goals and objectives towards their team members and coordinate and support them in the right direction to realize them. I expect that this will not only result into higher leader effectiveness, but that this support will also positively influence team effectiveness (Colbert et al., 2014). This because being highly extraverted enables a leader to be dominant and expressive in interacting with followers, and these factors are important when trying to motivate, persuade and mobilize followers (De Hoogh et al, 2005). Communicating an inspiring vision is easier to do when you are more extravert. When a leader manages to do so, employees are often motivated to perform beyond expectations, which will contribute to better team effectiveness.
Extraversion is also linked to sociability and friendliness. Therefore a extraverted manager is likely to engage in social interactions with team members, which may lead to the manager easily starting conversations in an attempt to get to know his or her team members. Hereby a manager that scores high on extraversion may sooner get to know an employee’s qualities, motivational drivers and weaknesses, than an less extraverted manager. Knowing an
employee’s strengths and weaknesses possibly makes it easier to assign the employee with a fitting role within the team, which potentially can result in higher team effectiveness because you have an optimal person-job fit (Nahrgang et al., 2009).
Also high leader extraversion in combination with overall high extraverted team members may positively influence team effectiveness, since extraverts alike will be perceived positively by one another due to their friendly and social nature (Phillips & Bedian, 1994; Nahrgang et al., 2009; Byrne, 1971). Therefore I propose that high levels of leader extraversion will have a positive effect on the relationship between team mean FFM traits and team effectiveness.
26
Hypothesis 10: Leader extraversion moderates the relationship between team personality composition and team effectiveness, such that the relationship
will be stronger when a leader scores high rather than low on this personality trait.
3.4.5 Openness to Experience
Creativity is an important component of openness to experience and has been indicated as an important skill of effective leaders as well. Because creativity and openness to experience strongly correspond, the suggestion can be made that open-minded individuals are more likely to emerge as leaders. Results of research by Judge et al. (2002) supports this assumption by showing a positive relation between openness to experience and individual leader effectiveness. Nowadays most work environments are highly dynamic, which makes it important for a leader to easily adapt its strategy. By being open to experience leaders are often more broad-minded, imaginative and daring, which makes them more flexible and thereby more effective (Colbert et al., 2014).
I therefore propose that high leader openness to experience will have a positive moderating effect on the relation between team mean FFM traits and team effectiveness. This because scoring high on this personality trait will compass a leader to enhance followers’ capacity to think on their own and encourage them to come up with new and creative ideas (De Hoogh et al, 2005).
Hypothesis 11: Leader openness to experience moderates the relationship between team personality composition and team effectiveness, such that the
relationship will be stronger when a leader scores high rather than low on this personality trait. 3.5 Team effectiveness, distinguishing between behavioral and performance outcomes
Most previous research on team personality composition has focused on its relation with team performance (Bell, 2007; Humphrey et al, 2011). Prewett et al (2009) however distinguish between behavioral outcomes and performance outcomes in their study. Similar to findings from the study by Bell (2007), Prewett et al (2009) found weak, but significant, correlations with team performance. Therefore team performance is still an interesting outcome to focus on, especially when investigating the possible moderating effect of leader personality and team personality diversity constructs.
However findings of the same study by Prewett et al. (2009) indicates a stronger relation between the traits extraversion, agreeableness and emotional stability with behaviors than with outcomes. This suggests that team personality composition may be more closely related to team behavior than to team outcomes or results (LePine et al, 2010). Since team organizational citizenship behavior can be labeled as behavior and team performance as an outcome of results, I expect to find a stronger relation with team personality composition and team organizational citizenship behavior than with team performance.
27 4. Method
4.1 Participants
A quantitative design has been chosen to test the hypotheses. The data has been collected through the conduction of a survey, which was distributed among the teams and its leaders and members within the recruitment branch. Responding teams had to fit the criteria of consisting out of at least two team members and one manager.
The sample consisted of Dutch employees, working on a part-time or fulltime basis within their organization. In total, ten recruitment agencies where approached to partake in an anonymous, digital survey. However most of these companies were hesitant to share such privacy-sensitive information about their teams. Most reservation came from employees having to judge their managers.
Three different recruitment agencies finally agreed to let their employees participate in the research. In total 32 teams, consisting of 98 team members and 32 managers, were invited to fill in the online survey.
Two types of digital surveys were available. One for the manager of the team, and one for the team members within the team.
Most of the questions were answered by making use of a Likert scale. The measures gathered by the survey therefore are mostly nominal data.
This method has been chosen, because the use of a Likert scale reduces the time that a respondent has to spend filling out the survey. Time is an important criteria for respondents to consider if they are willing to conduct the survey, reducing the time it takes to fill in the survey may increase the response rate. To reduce the number of missing data, a pop-up was installed to remind the participant that a question still needed to be answered.
Responding teams had to fit the criteria of consisting out of at least two team members and one manager. Some of the 32 participating teams missed one or two respondents. Since the teams where relatively small to begin with, this lead to the exclusion of some teams, because only one team member had filled in the questionnaire. Also some of the managers did not respond, and there for these teams had to be excluded as well.
The final sample used in this study consists of 68 team members and 23 team leaders, which are part of 23 teams. These teams are part of three different companies, which operate nationally within the Dutch recruitment business.
Divers tasks are performed by the members of these teams, among them recruitment, sales, ICT, HR, office management, customer service, sales support, marketing and communication, planning. Team members work closely together, and therefore interact frequently to discuss ideas or solve problems. The level of task interdependence within these teams is high, since team members service the same costumers and often work together to fill in vacancies. The back offices and sales have contact on a daily basis to exchange branch related knowledge, to answer questions of clients or candidates.
28 Team size among these 23 teams varied from 2 to 5 team members. Their age varied from 19 till 51 years old (M =28). A total of 19.12% of these
respondents where male and 80.88% was female. The average years of employment with their employer was 2.3 years. The level of education was spread from high school till university, 1,47% MAVO, 2,94% HAVO, 30,88% MBO, 61,76% HBO, 2,94% WO. In total 23,53% of the team member respondents worked part-time, and 76,47 % worked fulltime.
The age of the managers varied from 23 till 52 years old (M = 37,35). A total of 26.09% of these respondents where male and 73.91% was female. The average years of employment with their employer was 6.05 years. The level of education was spread from MBO till WO, 8.70% MBO, 78.26% HBO, 13.04% WO. In total 13.04% of the team member respondents worked part-time, and 86.96 % worked fulltime.
4.2 Measures Personality
To measure the personality characteristics agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion, and openness to experience a Big-Five framework was used, consisting of a total of 60 items, measuring the characteristics agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience, on a 5-point Likert scale. These items were included in the team member survey as well as the manager survey.
The measure agreeableness (Cronbach’s α = 0,707) consists of 12 items and assesses the level of a participants agreeableness. Eight of these twelve items were reversed coded, meaning that a low score actually indicates high level of agreeableness. One of these items is “If I don't like people, they will know”. To measure conscientiousness (Cronbach’s α = 0,812), also 12 items were uses to obtain the level of conscientiousness per participant. Four of the twelve items we reversed coded, and therefore had to be corrected, for instance “I am not very systematic”.
Again 12 items were used to conduct the level of extraversion of the participant (Cronbach’s α = 0,674). Four of these twelve items had to be recoded into different variables, like “I don't really see myself as a cheerful person”.
For the measurement of the level of neuroticism, 12 items were used (Cronbach’s α = 0,784). Four of the items were reversed coded, among them “I am rarely sad or depressive”. This study is interested in the levels of one’s emotional stability, and neuroticism measures the opposite. In this case low levels of neuroticism indicates high levels of emotional stability. High levels of neuroticism however, indicates low levels of emotional stability.
At last the 12 remaining items measured the level of openness to experience (Cronbach’s α = 0,706). Seven of these 12 items are reversed coded, among them “I do not like to waste my time with day dreaming”.
29 Data aggregation was used to construct outcomes on a team level for these personality characteristics. Mean values per team were calculated as well as the standard deviation, to determine the diversity within a team per trait.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organizational citizenship behaviour was assessed by using the 24 items from Podsakoff, which where assed by the team members themselves
(Cronbach’s α = ,713). These items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale, and five of the items had to be recoded into different variables due to contradicting ratings. For example “I consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters”.
Team performance
The team’s performance was rated by the manager using the 5 items on group performance by Conger et al. ( 2002) (Cronbach’s α = 0,839 ). Ratings were given on a 5-point Likert scale.
Control variables
The control variables for which was controlled for in the regression analysis, were; company, number of team members, and task interdependence. Company is includes, because organizational context can be an interesting situational factor to take in account since it may effect the differences in team effectiveness (Barrick et al., 2003). Also team size may influence team dynamics, and therefore is include as a control variable. Greater team size for instance may result in de formation of sub teams within the team and also potential power battles or social loafing may occur, which reflects on the effectiveness of the team (Lim & Klein, 2006). At last also task interdependence may influence the direction and level of the relationships between team mean personality and team effectiveness, because jobs high and low in task interdependence may vary in the kind of personality characteristics that are needed to effectively perform the job-related tasks (Bell, 2007). Therefor it is an important factor to incorporate in this study.
Company consisted of one item, namely the team code. Based on the first letters of the team code can be led off, of which company the team is part of. Number of team members also consisted of one item, for at the beginning the number of team members of the team where registered.
At last task interdependence consisted of 5 items by Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003, which were measured on a 7-point Likart scale (Cronbach’s α = ,659). One item had to be recoded into different variables due to contradicting ratings. This was: “I have a one-person job; it is not necessary for me to coordinate or cooperate with others”.
30 5. Results
In Table 1.1 and 1.2, means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables are presented. Looking at FFM personality characteristics, agreeableness mean has a significant positively relation to team performance. Also agreeableness mean shows a significant negative relation with leader agreeableness. Weaker, but still significant relationships are shown for team agreeableness mean and leader openness to experience and team
agreeableness mean and OCB, which are both positive. At last results also show a significant negative relationship between team agreeableness mean and team conscientiousness diversity.
Team conscientiousness mean shows a significant negative relationship with team neuroticism mean. For team extraversion mean no significant relationships where found.
Team neuroticism mean shows a significant negative relationship with both leader neuroticism and team performance. Furthermore, weaker, but still significant positive relationships are shown between team neuroticism mean and leader agreeableness and leader extraversion.
